Sunday, 28 January 2018

The Larrikin Years : Book Review

This little
publication of barely 140 pages is an absolute gem of a book.

As an introduction to
the Kelly story I can’t think of a better one to recommend, but I can certainly
think of worse ones. This book, released 27 years ago is streets ahead of the
rubbish that was produced just last year by Brad Webb ( Ned Kelly: Iron Outlaw)
and by Jack Peterson ( An Introduction..) For anyone trying to decide which book
to get to start their collection, this is the one to go for, and not just because
you can get it on ebay for a lot less than the other two. The other two are
Kelly propaganda, biased and distorted accounts of the Kelly story that promote
fake news about Ned Kelly, his family and the police. This book, by contrast is
remarkably even handed, but comprehensive and I think a balanced person reading
it will come away not just with a good understanding of the basic story, but
also an appreciation of the complexity of it.

No doubt some will
say ‘if Dee thinks its balanced it must favour the police and knock the Kellys’.
But this
is what Brad Webb has to say about “The Larrikin Years” on his web page of
Kelly book reviews :

“This book
is quite an enjoyable read. After all, it states just as much on the back cover
“His new book challenges conventional thinking about the Kelly Outbreak”. Buy
it, read it!”

And read this from Graham Jones Introduction :

“it was part of the original concept to weave the story of the creation
of the gang around the court cases in which the Kellys and their clan were
involved. This structure was abandoned when it began to appear that the family
and the Sympathisers must have spent the best years of their lives circulating
between the North Easts various court houses.”

“The court list is ominously long for a family of good intentions and
sober habits. It must invite speculation about ‘the Kellys’ as hardworking
selectors. But it must also cast doubts on the impartiality of the Police”.

As Jones says, the
record of Kelly criminality is ominously long, but there is also a record of police
misbehaviour: Jones doesn’t ignore any of it

Like many Kelly books
of recent years do, Graham Jones begins
this book with a kind of apology for adding further to “the already sagging shelves of Kellyana”. He declares it was his
intent to put the outbreak into ‘cultural
and historical’ perspective, and to ‘place
the outbreak within the wider uprising of youth against society which occurred
in Victoria in the 1870’s’.

Jones thesis is that
the Kelly story is primarily ‘the story
of the rise and fall of a gang of youthful larrikins, who achieved notoriety
throughout Australia in the latter part of the 1870’s as the Kelly Gang’. His
view is somewhat akin to the view of McQuilton (The Kelly Outbreak) published 3 years earlier, that
Kelly was a ‘social bandit’, which is to say, a product of the environment
and thesocial circumstances of the
time, who became a symbol to societies victims. McQuiltons view was in turn, in
sharp contrast to the earlier published
works of Molony (Ned Kelly 1980) and Brown ( Australian Son 1948) who lionised Ned Kelly and his exploits
as a romantic rebel. Ian Jones ( 'A short Life' 1995 and no relation ) turned back from Graham Jones view of the
larrikin towards Browns and Molonys view, that he was a hero, indeed a
politically motivated revolutionary.

The beauty of this
book however, in my view is that Graham Jones makes very little direct attempt
to persuade the reader of his particular perspective. There is a limited discussion
of what was understood at the time by ‘larrikinism’ and its origins and
effects, and of some of the communitys attitudes and responses to it, but
essentially what Jones does here is let the story speak for itself. However, unfortunately
Jones provides almost nothing in terms of references and bibliography, my main disappointment.

This remarkable little book thus consists mostly of a surprisingly thorough account of the entire
Kelly story, beginning with the arrival in 1848 of Red Kelly in Port Phillip
Bay, through the Ah Fook incident, Harry Power and all the usual landmarks to
Ned Kelly’s trial and execution, ending with a brief mention of the Royal
commission and the aftermath of the outbreak. There is plenty of factual detail
but not so much pejorative commentary, either about the Kelly’s or the Police. There’s
even a nice map of Kelly country.

Something I hadn’t read
before - but others have apparently - was that when Ellen Kelly’s brother-in-law was convicted of arson – he burned
down the house in which Ellen, her two sisters and all their children lived - the sentence of death pronounced on him was a
mandatory sentence. Jones makes little comment about this fact, but notes that Judge
Redmond Barry, who had no choice other than to pronounce it, commented that it
was excessive. He knew from precedents already set that there was no danger of
the sentence being carried out, and left it to the executive to show ‘appropriate mercy’. The modern
pro-Kelly commentariat ignore these facts entirely, preferring to cite that
death sentence as evidence in support of their vilification of the great Judge
Redmond Barry as some sort of vindictive and merciless ‘hanging judge’ who was
out to get the Kellys. Again, as ever in the Kelly debates, the full facts show
a very different truth to the one promoted by the likes of Peterson and Web,
and repeated by the ill-informed internet Kelly propagandists who for ever
conceal all the inconvenient truths.

The Larrikin Years
finishes with something that no Kelly defender should ever read : its a 25 page
appendix, a list of the cases covering the period from the arrival of Ellen Kelly
in the north-east in 1867 to Neds preliminary trial at Beechworth in 1880. It
is a long, comprehensive and dispassionate catalogue that has no accompanying
commentary, no attempt to moralise or patronise or excuse or excoriate any
party, but simply presents facts as they were recorded at the time. It is an absolutely
devastating read. I found myself shaking my head in astonishment as I turned
page after page documenting the interactions between the Kelly clan and the
Courts. Facts alone can sometimes make the most powerful arguments.

This is the ideal
Introduction to Ned Kelly and its still available on e-bay and Abe books. A
Kelly ‘must read’

I added this book to my collection last year, but only got around to reading it last night following your glowing review. At only 140 pages, it is easy to skim through in a night. I agree with you that it is an absolute gem of a book. It’s like a kinder version of Ned Kelly – A Lawless Life, with the author simply presenting the facts and making no judgements.

Before getting into the book proper, I started with a read of the appendix of court cases that the Kellys and their friends and associates had been involved in over the period 1868 – 1880. That’s quite an eye-opener and leaves no doubt about their criminality. However some of the court cases cited are interesting for other reasons, including:• The case William Barnett (a farmer at Greta) v Tom Lloyd on 18 November 1869, in which Barnett accused Lloyd of interfering with Barnett’s efforts to take cattle belonging to the Lloyds to the pound. The cattle had supposedly trespassed onto Barnett’s land. However under cross-examination it turned out that the land concerned was not his at all, but rather land (including government land) he had simply claimed as his own. I find this interesting as an example of the squatter / selector disputes that many historians have cited as a contributing factor behind the Kelly outbreak. The support the Kelly’s received from some selectors could possibly be attributed to this. (A subsequent court case on 3 February 1872 saw John Lloyd sentenced for wounding and killing a horse belonging to the same William Barnett, so obviously there was a lot of bad blood between these families). • The case Police v Lonigan on 25 August 1875. This case concerned Lonigan’s assault of a drunken prisoner named William Johnson. This is interesting because it shows the police taking action against one of their own and that Lonigan. It also raises questions about the character of Lonigan. Could Lonigan’s treatment of Ned outside the Benalla boot maker’s shop some two years later (18 September 1877) have been a bit excessive?

The book is very well written for all the reasons you have yourself noted. I note the book was first published in 1990, some two years before Ian Jones ‘Ned Kelly – A Short Life”. Whilst Ian’s book goes into much greater depth and includes a fair bit of “historical fiction”, the beauty of Graham’s book to my mind is that it simply gives the facts in a very concise manner. It is indeed a good introduction to the Kelly story. I agree it is a pity though that he didn’t include his references.

One thing in Graham Jones book that caught my attention is his brief commentary on the idea of the Republic of North Eastern Victoria (at page 104). I find the wording of his first paragraph dealing with this to be a bit ambiguous. That’s where he says it is easy to dismiss the idea that the establishment of the Republic of NE Victoria was part of the agenda of Glenrowan is a bit ambiguous. I am not sure if he means it is easy to dismiss, or whether he is implying it is too easy to dismiss the idea. I think it might be the latter, given that he then goes on to note that the Riverina had been trying for years to break away from NSW to either join Victoria or become a separate colony, and that this would have had a certain attraction to Irish Catholics in Victoria. I’m not suggesting Ned himself was likely to be the head of any “movement” (other than the leader of a gang of “larrikin” outlaws), but it’s likely he was aware of republican sentiments and perhaps latched onto this as a means of justifying some of their actions (e.g. as he did to some extent in the Jerilderie Letter). Perhaps some of the selectors and sympathisers who supported the Gang saw them as some kind of “symbol” of resistance.

The Wangaratta Historical Society of which Graham Jones was a member until his death in 2000 still have quite a few copies of this book for sale if anyone is interested.

Thanks Peter. Isn't it remarkable that this great little book has never been discussed before? I couldn't find reviews of it anywhere other than on the IO web page. Your comment about the Republic reminded me that I had planned to mention that reference in my review but then forgot! But I also pondered over what he meant by saying its easy to dismiss then discussing it rather than dismissing it. The point about Ned and the republic is that he didn't actually mention it, even at Glenrowan when he made a speech, and as I keep pointing out, he was never short of a word.I think its easy to dismiss because theres nothing to support the idea that Ned Kelly himself ever interested in it.

Hi Peter, I am going to be a bit of a sceptic here. If there were people who wanted regional independence, they could have just stared a separation movement like the one in Riverina over the border. All the stuff that has been written about treasonous secret republican meetings is just silly when you have a long-running separation movement down the street (or up the creek). No-one except Molony seems to have made a strong case for Irish influence, but Morrissey showed that he was wrong there about Irish Republican influence, which Morrissey say did not become a factor until after the 1916 risning. Before that, the colonial Irish hoped for a peaceful transition to Home Rule. Don't ask me for details, it's not my area, but Morrissey deals with it. Most of what has been written about Irish republican Kelly rebels is a fairy stories, poor scholarship, and oral history that dates from after 1916, not from colonial Victoria.

There is another great little book by Graham Jones, co-authored with Judy Bassett, called “The Kelly Years” (1980). It has lots of Kelly trivia, and a real gem at the end, a 5 page critical review of McQuilton’s 1979 “Kelly Outbreak”, which shows why Hobsbawm’s model of social bandits in pre-industrial peasant societies doesn’t work as an explanation of squatters vs. selectors “class struggle” in colonial Victoria. Trigger warning: Kellyphiles may need a safe space and post-Bassett counselling to recover. (The new generation of university graduates won’t be able to read a newspaper without a crying fit, as every page has something someone doesn’t like.) The “social bandit” model doesn’t work for Kelly country. It was an interesting and legitimate experiment for a PhD thesis, applying a then-fashionable academic theory to Kelly country and seeing how well it worked. No-one knows if a model works until someone tests it out. But after you read Bassett and Jones, you realise that a lot of the social bandit rubbish that been bandied about since then, from McQuilton’s thesis, published as “The Kelly Outbreak: The Geographical Dimension of Social Banditry”, is wrong. Doug Morrissey’s PhD thesis was basically a 300 page examination of McQuilton’s book looking at primary sources, in particular Lands Department records, and showing why the Hobsbawn model doesn’t work for colonial selectors. You can cut to the chase in the “Kelly Years” Appendix 3 review. Essential reading.

OK Thanks Stuart I will have to get it. I am wondering if we've all been singing the praises of the wrong Mr Jones? Certainly Ian Jones dominated the scene and wasn't all that charitable towards anyone else who tried to get a look in.

Aaron Sherritt's niece who died about 20 years ago had nothing nice to say about Graham Jones. He used to write a weekly article in the Wangaratta Chronicle, and she often berated him publicly for saying things about Aaron, and the Kelly Gang that were blatantly untrue. I saw her steaming mad on a number of occasions after yet another Graham Jones misrepresentation of the truth.

Wow!! This page has descended into chaos. Someone posts about an actual person and their opinion of Graham Jones, and look at the tirade. I think that anon was simply saying that from the Sherritt side of the Kelly story Graham Jones was somewhat disliked, and this probably included the writings in the book. It is then suggested by other anon. posters, Blue Moon, and Horrie that the post is linked to Bob McGarrigle and/or some other Facebook page. WRONG!!! Horrie ( prob.Brian Tate)when a person relates something they saw and heard, they don't need to prove anything. You just need to believe it. I love how you all resort to insults, when you either don't get your own way, or someone says something you don't agree with. There are many people who have had direct contact with descendants from the Kelly era, on all sides, (police, Kelly, Sherritt etc,) and when they post things they have heard or been told they are met with ridicule. What a bunch of losers you are. You will never learn the truth so keep reading your books, and disputing everything in them. I would expect nothing less.

Chaos? I think youre getting a bit carried away Anonymous. You posted allegations from 20 years ago that Graham Jones wrote things about Aaron and the Kelly gang that were 'blatantly untrue' and you wrote about 'Graham Jones misrepresentation of the truth'

Well those are pretty harsh claims to make about a dead man, and you didnt bother to supply anything to back them up , which we all know is tiresomely typical of kelly fanciers, so not unreasonably a couple of other posters have expressed their negative reactions to your post which advances the discussion nowhere, because its just unsubstantiated allegation. Ashleigh Broads post wasn't all that helpful either.

I am interested in your claim that when people relate things they have seen and heard they dont need to prove it, they just need to be believed. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that? How do you resolve the common experience of witnesses reporting the same event and giving accounts which conflict? They BOTH cannot "just be believed" can they? This goes back to comments on FB by Greg Devlin who didnt seem to be able to imagine there might be reasons to prefer one persons account over anothers.

If someone makes a claim, I will 'just believe' that what they said is what they believe, but I won't necessarily accept that what they said is necessarily true.

Anonymous, I have talked to several descendants of people from around Greta and Ballarat, and they all say Ned Kelly and his gang were a*holes and Ian Jones is full of *it. From the victims side there are so many lies told by Kelly worshippers no one knows where to start. Keep talking to sympathiser descendants who are making a dollar or two and a little bit of fame boasting about how they are from a famous criminal. When people say anything bad about the Kelly gang people like you all leap to their defence. What a bunch of losers you are. You will never learn the truth and admit that Kelly was a first class a*hole so you keep talking crap. I would expect nothing less.

Hamish, where in anything I have written here did I leap to the defence of the Kelly Gang. In fact the stuff said by Graham Jones and said to be incorrect was in regards to Aaron Sherritt. Never mentioned Ned at any time. So the paranoid disciples of Dee get it wrong again.

Another interesting thing in Graham Jones' book was his commentary about how some believed the coffins of Steve and Dan were filled with rocks, and that the boys were buried elsewhere. Graham didn't have a view one way or the other about this. I did a post about this back in 2016 (April) that didn't attract a single comment other than from Dee. I have always thought it to be an interesting part of the Kelly story.

Its interesting becasue it illustrates how claims that after not much more than a moments thought can be dismissed as complete nonsense , never-the-less manage to hang around and get passed on by people who are thoroughly gullible and uncritical . Less obvious nonsense, which constitutes much of the Kelly mythology, is thus almost impossible to ever eradicate from the discussions about Kelly history.

Anonymous I am curious to know how you respond when someone else says Dan was buried at Greta Cemetery. Obviously you cant believe both these claims simultaneously, but you have said that when people tell you things they've seen and heard - such as hearing someone say there were only rocks in Dans coffin - 'you just need to believe it'. So how do you resolve that conflict - one person telling you he was buried in the cemetery another saying he wasn't.

I say again: claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well Anonymous, would their burial site be in a gully on the east side of the Fueller Range? That's what I was told my someone whose family lived next door to Richard Hart back in the 1930s. I put a fair bit of time into investigating three possible sites. In the end though, I asked myself how could it be that the families have managed to keep knowledge of the site private all these years. I don't think they could have and therefore I'm inclined to believe they are in Greta Cemetery just as Ellen Kelly told Cookson.

1. Moderation is back on. I haven’t got time to be constantly monitoring what comments are made and deleting the mindless rubbish that Kelly sympathisers have been posting lately. Please post polite sensible comments, avoid personal abuse and please use the same name whenever you Post, even if its a made-up name.

2. Do you want to provide an active Link in your Comment? The simplest way that I can suggest is to click HEREand follow the simple instructions. This site creates the Tag that you then copy and insert into your Comment.

I wrote on Facebook that last week was going to be a massive week for the Kelly World, and it turned out to be even bigger than I was ex...

Why this Blog?

There are a few places on the Internet that host discussions about the Kelly story, but even though they all claim all views are welcome, if you post ideas about Ned Kelly they dont like, you will quickly be abused and attacked, and if you dont shut up or go away they will ban you. Thats what happened to me.

So, instead of shutting up or going away I started this Blog, my own place to continue discussions about the Kelly story, the only Kelly place where all views can be expressed without fear of being banned.

About this Blog

Kelly sympathisers to this day are continuing their campaign to silence me by intimidation, by threats and by vilification, so I post under a pseudonym and use an Avatar that symbolises youth, beauty and truth. I am not a historian or an expert on the Kelly story but since 2012 have been slowly increasing my understanding of it, and finding it absorbing and enjoyable to share what I have learned on this Blog. This last six years have been great times for Kelly sceptics like myself, because the tide turned with the publication of Ian MacFarlanes ground-breaking work 'The Kelly Gang Unmasked' in 2012, and its been going out ever since.
A Clan of criminals told so many big lies about their story that much of it has been believed to be true, and the police heroes mocked as villains. The record is at last being put right. Stripping away the myths and the fables from the Kelly story doesnt diminish its fascination and its richness, but restores truth and integrity to a part of the Australian story that for many has long been an embarrassment.
Comment on the Blog , or the Facebook pages : ‘Death of the Legend’ and ‘Ned Kelly the True Story’
Thanks.

The Historical Record...

Kelvyn Gill’s revised edition of his massive work cataloguing the documents that chronicle the Kelly story is a TWO VOLUME SET of 1220 pages! Its a must-have for anyone seriously interested in researching the Kelly story.

Its double the size of the first edition with many new images and much new information. Its not available in shops.

Three YEARS later, and we are STILL waiting for the promised Part Two. ...

Disclaimer

The Posts and Comments on this Blog are the personal opinions of the people who make them. Freedom of expression and opinion are the foundation stone for a free and democratic society and is a basic human right.